Uttarakhand High Court
Mahendra Pal Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 23 February, 2018
Bench: K.M. Joseph, Sharad Kumar Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No. 586 of 2017
Mahendra Pal Sharma. ............ Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others. .............. Respondents
Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Narayan Dutt, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
Mr. Ashutosh Posti, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. S.K. Shandilya, Advocate for
respondent Nos. 5 to 7.
JUDGMENT
Coram: Hon'ble K.M. Joseph, C.J.
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Dated: 23rd February, 2018 K.M. JOSEPH, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition was filed by the appellant for a direction to respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to decide the Application, which he had filed under Section 198-A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, and to restore the possession of the appellant in the allotted land.
2. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge reads as follows:
"Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate present for the petitioner. Ms. Prabha Naithani, Brief Holder present for the respondents.
The petitioner submits that his application under Section 198-A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is pending before the authorities. He prays that direction be given to the authorities for disposal of the application expeditiously.
All the same, it has been brought to the knowledge that what the petitioner in fact seeks before this Court is eviction of his real brother, who according to the petitioner has occupied the part of the property which was allotted to the petitioner. Moreover, against the said relief, the petitioner has already moved a civil suit where injunction has already been granted to the petitioner.
In view thereof, no relief can be granted as sought by the petitioner before this Court.
Writ petition is dismissed."2
3. We have heard Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the appellant; Mr. Ashutosh Posti, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. S.K. Shandilya, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 to 7; and Mr. Narayan Dutt, learned Brief Holder appearing for the State.
4. As can be noticed from the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the filing of the suit by the appellant. The suit was one for injunction against respondent No. 1 only.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would point out that there were four respondents in the Application moved under Section 198A. The suit was filed as against the first respondent and the other three respondents in the Application under Section 198A are the party respondents in the writ petition and in the appeal. It is submitted that there is no suit filed by the appellant as against the party respondents in the appeal. As far as the suit is concerned, he further submits that the suit itself has become infructuous, as the first respondent in the Application under Section 198A has vacated a portion of the property, which is covered under the Application under Section 198A and, therefore, on the said ground, relief should not have been denied to him.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and noticing the stand of the appellant, we are of the view that the appeal is to be disposed of by directing respondent No. 3 to take a decision on the Application filed under Section 198A (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) as early as possible. Accordingly, we dispose of the appeal, after setting aside the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, by directing that the Application filed under Section 198A (Annexure No. 3) be decided as early as possible, necessarily, after giving opportunity as required in law to all the parties.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) (K.M. Joseph, C. J.) 23.02.2018 23.02.2018 G